Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents QAnon in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's
Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:
In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See
Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the
procedures and edit carefully.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
Please stay
calm and
civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and
do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached,
other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#June 28, 2022|sixth public hearing on the January 6 Attack]] The anchor (#June 28, 2022) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Subcategory
Category:QAnon is no longer used on biographical articles. Do you think we should create a subcategory called "QAnon followers" (or maybe "QAnon supporters" or "QAnon promoters") ? It might be useful for people like
Ron Watkins,
Jim Watkins,
L. Lin Wood,
Lionel and such.
Psychloppos (
talk) 11:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
QAnon is categorized as an American Fascist movement. However, there is little to indicate a following of Fascist beliefs and principles as laid out by Fascist philosophers other than Nationalism. They haven't spoken in favor of Fascist figures like Mussolini or even Hitler. They may certainly be a far-right movement but definitely not a Fascist movement. Hence, the category American Fascist movements ought to be removed.
Listenhereyadonkey (
talk) 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
They often side with Trump, so there's that.... There are numerous RS that connect him with fascist ideas, values, and rhetoric. Here's
an interesting thesis. BTW, he, of course, has no clue what fascism really is. He just uses the word to attack left-wingers, even though it's a right-wing ideology that best describes him and his most die-hard followers. --
Valjean (
talk) (PING me) 01:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fascism isn't necessarily either left or right, and in regard to economics, it's actually more left wing. Trump's ideology, while there are parallels to be drawn to Fascism is not a Fascist ideology. The only two shared characteristics are Nationalism and strong man leadership, neither of which are inherently Fascist or exclusive to it and can apply to a multitude of ideologies. Trump's ideology is just Right-Wing Populist Nationalism. It isn't even remotely similar to actual Fascism as it was envisioned and practiced by Fascist philosophers like Gentile, Mussolini, and D'Annunzio, among others. Fascism emphasizes state control, national unity under a powerful government, big government, collectivism, and a Nationalist directive. There's a very distinct philosophy there centered around collective nationalist unity. It's almost a spiritual philosophy that again is very different from Trump's ideology. To be Fascist means to follow a very specific ideology and to call anyone who is a nationalist or an authoritarian or is far-right a fascist based solely on those characteristics that would be gravely inaccurate.
Listenhereyadonkey (
talk) 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unless there are reliable sources explicitly identifying QAnon as fascist, I'd be inclined to remove the category. It is unquestionably a far right conspiracy theory. And has been so labeled by numerous sources. But I haven't run into any calling it fascist. Trump's allegedly fascist inclinations are neither here nor there. See
WP:SYNTH. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Groomers"
As evidenced by my recent edits, I fail to see the relevance of mentioning in this article that "Use of the term groomers was adopted by Christopher Rufo in constructing the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory, and started to influence mainstream Republican political positions and rhetoric".
I'm not disputing this, but I don't understand how this is necessarily connected to QAnon :
QAnon discourse is not "mainstream Republican political positions and rhetoric" or mainstream conservatism in general.
There is no evidence of a connection between Christopher Rufo and QAnon (or, if there is evidence of that, it should be included in the article for the benefit of the reader) or that the "grooming" concept originated in QAnon (ditto).
I'm not saying that the belief in a wide, nefarious LGBT plot to "groom" children is incompatible with conspiracy theories about pedophile networks. On the contrary, I am pretty sure that some QAnon (or formerly QAnon) people have embraced the "grooming" concept with enthusiasm. But we should not be implying that all people who use the "grooming" or "groomer" phrases are linked to QAnon, or that Christopher Rufo is a QAnon ideologue, and the current version of the article seems to do just that.
If there is indeed a connection of some sort, we should rewrite this part in order to explain how the LGBT conspiracy theories have been adopted/used by QAnon, per its nature as a "big tent" conspiracy theory. Otherwise, it's just irrelevant to this article. Thanks
Psychloppos (
talk) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Well the title of the article is "The QAnon catchphrases that took over the Jackson hearings", but it is paywalled, but would rather ask for expansion and verification than removal. So can some with access to the article conform or deny it makes the link?
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It should definitely be double-checked. We cannot just use the title of an article as a reference, especially if there is the risk of slandering a living person. Once again, I would be ok with an explanation of how the QAnon movement has embraced the LGBT grooming theory (just like it has incorporated claims from an awful lot of other conspiracy theories) but we should not imply that the "groomer" concept and QAnon are necessarily connected.
At the very least, if there is no evidence of Christopher Rufo's direct involvement in QAnon, we should simplify this part and write something like "Adherents to the QAnon movement have been using the "groomer" catchprase/other elements from LGBT conspiracy theories because, blah blah (insert source)" without any reference to Rufo.
Psychloppos (
talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Then tag it as verification needed.
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd say the problem is both about the passage's relevance and the need for verification.
Psychloppos (
talk) 16:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Please note that some comments have been altered after I replied to them.
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
They have generally been expanded (and in some case, corrected - some grammar issues) rather than altered.
Psychloppos (
talk) 16:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That still counts. It's generally a bad idea to edit your previous comments once someone has replied to them, even if it's just to add more text. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The relevant text from the WaPo article is:
The most vivid importation of the QAnon worldview is happening in education, the policy domain where conservatives can best prey upon parental fears. Chris Rufo, the conservative activist who orchestrated the movement against critical race theory, is constructing a new moral panic using QAnon messaging. Rufo’s main strategy is “winning the language war,” which effectively means using the McCarthyite tactic of attaching a negative label (“communist!”) to those who hold different beliefs and relentlessly repeating that label regardless of its accuracy. Rufo has urged followers to use language such as “grooming” or “predators” — words intended to trigger images of child sexual abuse. It works. The “groomers” framing played a prominent role in the passage of Florida’s law prohibiting discussion of sexual identity among young children in schools. When it became known among critics as the “don’t say gay” bill, a spokeswoman for Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) reframed it as an “Anti-Grooming” bill. If you oppose the bill, “you are probably a groomer,” she wrote on Twitter.
So the language used in the article is that Rufo is directly using QAnon to push the "groomer" rhetoric in order to smear LGBTQIA+ activists as pedophiles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's odd, because based on this I don't see how Rufo (or the DeSantis team for that matter) can be said to be directly "using QAnon".
What we could do, however, is mentioning that The Washington Post sees this as an "importation of the QAnon worldview" in mainstream conservatism. Stoking fears about child molestation does have something in common with QAnon: but we should still not be implying that the "groomer" concept is QAnon. That part of the article should be rewritten.
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What is confusing, IMHO, it the inclusion of this part in the "Slogans and vocabulary" section which gives the impression that the grooming/groomer concept directly originated in QAnon which it apparently did not. If we do include this part about QAnon's influence on mainstream discourse, I'd say it would be more relevant in the "Appeal" subsection, or maybe in "Media, advocacy groups, and public figures".
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Rufo has urged followers to use language such as “grooming” or “predators”
That's the article asserting that he was actively pushing this terminology to QAnon ("followers" in this context) in order to weaponize them in spreading it. So the argument is not that it originated with QAnon, but that they were used to amplify and spread it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Does the article means that Rufo has been urging specifically QAnon followers or rather his followers ? He does seem to have a lot of followers of his own so he may not need QAnon that much.
Anyway, if we move this part as suggested above and rewrite it to attribute the viewpoint, I'd be ok with this.
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article itself is about QAnon, so it seems clear that the author meant he was addressing QAnon followers.
That said, I wouldn't object to moving it to the "Media" section with more clear attribution. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not quite sure. Judging by what you posted I'd say the article is more about how Rufo et al have been using a QAnon-like discourse and how QAnon methods have polluted American politics. Saying that Rufo appeals directly and willingly to a QAnon audience is a pretty serious accusation and we can't do that with that (ambiguous IMHO) source alone.
Anyway, if we make that move and rewrite this part a little we should probably solve the problem. I can do it if you don't mind.
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
PS: implying that DeSantis and his team are part of the QAnon movement would be even worse so obviously we can't do that either without some very solid sources, and this article is probably not sufficient.
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I just did the suggested change. Moynihan's position is pretty extreme IMHO (I see this "groomer" thing less as an influence of QAnon than as a symptom of the broader qualitative degradation of public discourse) but now that the viewpoint is attributed I don't think it will be a problem.
Psychloppos (
talk) 07:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I made some further edits to include Moynihan's accusations against Rufo rather than "mainstream conservatives". I'd say that by attributing the viewpoint to Moynihan we are cautious enough so that it does not look like a slander of Rufo. The fact that Rufo uses these tactics and that Moynihan likens it to QAnon without Rufo having ever (as far as I know) adhered to QAnon may both be examples of a certain brutalization of political discourse.
Psychloppos (
talk) 09:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia policy notes for new editors:
A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents QAnon in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's
Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:
In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be giving false balance to. See
Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the
procedures and edit carefully.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
Please stay
calm and
civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and
do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached,
other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Public hearings of the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack#June 28, 2022|sixth public hearing on the January 6 Attack]] The anchor (#June 28, 2022) is no longer available because it was
deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Subcategory
Category:QAnon is no longer used on biographical articles. Do you think we should create a subcategory called "QAnon followers" (or maybe "QAnon supporters" or "QAnon promoters") ? It might be useful for people like
Ron Watkins,
Jim Watkins,
L. Lin Wood,
Lionel and such.
Psychloppos (
talk) 11:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)reply
QAnon is categorized as an American Fascist movement. However, there is little to indicate a following of Fascist beliefs and principles as laid out by Fascist philosophers other than Nationalism. They haven't spoken in favor of Fascist figures like Mussolini or even Hitler. They may certainly be a far-right movement but definitely not a Fascist movement. Hence, the category American Fascist movements ought to be removed.
Listenhereyadonkey (
talk) 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
They often side with Trump, so there's that.... There are numerous RS that connect him with fascist ideas, values, and rhetoric. Here's
an interesting thesis. BTW, he, of course, has no clue what fascism really is. He just uses the word to attack left-wingers, even though it's a right-wing ideology that best describes him and his most die-hard followers. --
Valjean (
talk) (PING me) 01:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Fascism isn't necessarily either left or right, and in regard to economics, it's actually more left wing. Trump's ideology, while there are parallels to be drawn to Fascism is not a Fascist ideology. The only two shared characteristics are Nationalism and strong man leadership, neither of which are inherently Fascist or exclusive to it and can apply to a multitude of ideologies. Trump's ideology is just Right-Wing Populist Nationalism. It isn't even remotely similar to actual Fascism as it was envisioned and practiced by Fascist philosophers like Gentile, Mussolini, and D'Annunzio, among others. Fascism emphasizes state control, national unity under a powerful government, big government, collectivism, and a Nationalist directive. There's a very distinct philosophy there centered around collective nationalist unity. It's almost a spiritual philosophy that again is very different from Trump's ideology. To be Fascist means to follow a very specific ideology and to call anyone who is a nationalist or an authoritarian or is far-right a fascist based solely on those characteristics that would be gravely inaccurate.
Listenhereyadonkey (
talk) 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Unless there are reliable sources explicitly identifying QAnon as fascist, I'd be inclined to remove the category. It is unquestionably a far right conspiracy theory. And has been so labeled by numerous sources. But I haven't run into any calling it fascist. Trump's allegedly fascist inclinations are neither here nor there. See
WP:SYNTH. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
"Groomers"
As evidenced by my recent edits, I fail to see the relevance of mentioning in this article that "Use of the term groomers was adopted by Christopher Rufo in constructing the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory, and started to influence mainstream Republican political positions and rhetoric".
I'm not disputing this, but I don't understand how this is necessarily connected to QAnon :
QAnon discourse is not "mainstream Republican political positions and rhetoric" or mainstream conservatism in general.
There is no evidence of a connection between Christopher Rufo and QAnon (or, if there is evidence of that, it should be included in the article for the benefit of the reader) or that the "grooming" concept originated in QAnon (ditto).
I'm not saying that the belief in a wide, nefarious LGBT plot to "groom" children is incompatible with conspiracy theories about pedophile networks. On the contrary, I am pretty sure that some QAnon (or formerly QAnon) people have embraced the "grooming" concept with enthusiasm. But we should not be implying that all people who use the "grooming" or "groomer" phrases are linked to QAnon, or that Christopher Rufo is a QAnon ideologue, and the current version of the article seems to do just that.
If there is indeed a connection of some sort, we should rewrite this part in order to explain how the LGBT conspiracy theories have been adopted/used by QAnon, per its nature as a "big tent" conspiracy theory. Otherwise, it's just irrelevant to this article. Thanks
Psychloppos (
talk) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Well the title of the article is "The QAnon catchphrases that took over the Jackson hearings", but it is paywalled, but would rather ask for expansion and verification than removal. So can some with access to the article conform or deny it makes the link?
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
It should definitely be double-checked. We cannot just use the title of an article as a reference, especially if there is the risk of slandering a living person. Once again, I would be ok with an explanation of how the QAnon movement has embraced the LGBT grooming theory (just like it has incorporated claims from an awful lot of other conspiracy theories) but we should not imply that the "groomer" concept and QAnon are necessarily connected.
At the very least, if there is no evidence of Christopher Rufo's direct involvement in QAnon, we should simplify this part and write something like "Adherents to the QAnon movement have been using the "groomer" catchprase/other elements from LGBT conspiracy theories because, blah blah (insert source)" without any reference to Rufo.
Psychloppos (
talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Then tag it as verification needed.
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd say the problem is both about the passage's relevance and the need for verification.
Psychloppos (
talk) 16:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Please note that some comments have been altered after I replied to them.
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
They have generally been expanded (and in some case, corrected - some grammar issues) rather than altered.
Psychloppos (
talk) 16:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That still counts. It's generally a bad idea to edit your previous comments once someone has replied to them, even if it's just to add more text. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The relevant text from the WaPo article is:
The most vivid importation of the QAnon worldview is happening in education, the policy domain where conservatives can best prey upon parental fears. Chris Rufo, the conservative activist who orchestrated the movement against critical race theory, is constructing a new moral panic using QAnon messaging. Rufo’s main strategy is “winning the language war,” which effectively means using the McCarthyite tactic of attaching a negative label (“communist!”) to those who hold different beliefs and relentlessly repeating that label regardless of its accuracy. Rufo has urged followers to use language such as “grooming” or “predators” — words intended to trigger images of child sexual abuse. It works. The “groomers” framing played a prominent role in the passage of Florida’s law prohibiting discussion of sexual identity among young children in schools. When it became known among critics as the “don’t say gay” bill, a spokeswoman for Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) reframed it as an “Anti-Grooming” bill. If you oppose the bill, “you are probably a groomer,” she wrote on Twitter.
So the language used in the article is that Rufo is directly using QAnon to push the "groomer" rhetoric in order to smear LGBTQIA+ activists as pedophiles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That's odd, because based on this I don't see how Rufo (or the DeSantis team for that matter) can be said to be directly "using QAnon".
What we could do, however, is mentioning that The Washington Post sees this as an "importation of the QAnon worldview" in mainstream conservatism. Stoking fears about child molestation does have something in common with QAnon: but we should still not be implying that the "groomer" concept is QAnon. That part of the article should be rewritten.
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
What is confusing, IMHO, it the inclusion of this part in the "Slogans and vocabulary" section which gives the impression that the grooming/groomer concept directly originated in QAnon which it apparently did not. If we do include this part about QAnon's influence on mainstream discourse, I'd say it would be more relevant in the "Appeal" subsection, or maybe in "Media, advocacy groups, and public figures".
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Rufo has urged followers to use language such as “grooming” or “predators”
That's the article asserting that he was actively pushing this terminology to QAnon ("followers" in this context) in order to weaponize them in spreading it. So the argument is not that it originated with QAnon, but that they were used to amplify and spread it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Does the article means that Rufo has been urging specifically QAnon followers or rather his followers ? He does seem to have a lot of followers of his own so he may not need QAnon that much.
Anyway, if we move this part as suggested above and rewrite it to attribute the viewpoint, I'd be ok with this.
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The article itself is about QAnon, so it seems clear that the author meant he was addressing QAnon followers.
That said, I wouldn't object to moving it to the "Media" section with more clear attribution. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not quite sure. Judging by what you posted I'd say the article is more about how Rufo et al have been using a QAnon-like discourse and how QAnon methods have polluted American politics. Saying that Rufo appeals directly and willingly to a QAnon audience is a pretty serious accusation and we can't do that with that (ambiguous IMHO) source alone.
Anyway, if we make that move and rewrite this part a little we should probably solve the problem. I can do it if you don't mind.
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
PS: implying that DeSantis and his team are part of the QAnon movement would be even worse so obviously we can't do that either without some very solid sources, and this article is probably not sufficient.
Psychloppos (
talk) 17:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I just did the suggested change. Moynihan's position is pretty extreme IMHO (I see this "groomer" thing less as an influence of QAnon than as a symptom of the broader qualitative degradation of public discourse) but now that the viewpoint is attributed I don't think it will be a problem.
Psychloppos (
talk) 07:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I made some further edits to include Moynihan's accusations against Rufo rather than "mainstream conservatives". I'd say that by attributing the viewpoint to Moynihan we are cautious enough so that it does not look like a slander of Rufo. The fact that Rufo uses these tactics and that Moynihan likens it to QAnon without Rufo having ever (as far as I know) adhered to QAnon may both be examples of a certain brutalization of political discourse.
Psychloppos (
talk) 09:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
